Re: Should we drop the color bullet for now?

On Apr 27, 2017 9:58 PM, "Wayne Dick" <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:


Actually color can be chosen for testing for developers easily. Also, we
can make a tool available for users to choose acceptable colors. The issue
that users may choose colors frivolously is  silly.

Then we haven't made our wording of the SC tight enough. I think this is
what we are trying to do... find the right language to state in a testable
way what authors should or should not do to the color needs of lowvision
people.


There are semantic difficulties: Use of color to visually hide content, use
of image color to support visibility. Use of background images to cash
images. Use of background images to create visible text just violates use
of color for meaning. Content can be visuŐally hidden with size. Images can
be cashed with CSS "content".

These are great and useful.


This process is unfair. People with print disabilities are expected to
engage in extensive discussions in print without accommodation.  You cannot
participate reading only 1/10 of the critical information.

Ok. You and others on the group have expressed several time to AG the
difficulties. Would it help if I sent you a copy of each response to each
email and issue as an individual email. Or, perhaps you and i  an come up
with some other solution. Unfortunately, We will not be able to change the
tools. I will work with you to find a way to get you the information in a
meaningful way.


I didn't even dream someone would propose dropping font permanently. I need
my distinguishable fonts.

I know you need the ability to change fonts, as do many, many others. In
the meeting today, we discussed that many in the AG had issues with authors
having to have sites that worked regardless of the font chosen by the user.
Laura and the group have worked for many weeks trying to resolve that
issue. As we discussed, font families change the width of content boxes. As
does letter spacing. We thought that given the range of options in the
current SC for changing letter and word spacing would adequately cover the
width requirements if the user also changed font family.
7We believe that font family change is still be available to the user
through the current mechanisms (css, browser extensions, and bookmarklets).
It sounds like you want an SC that explicitly calls out font family
flexibility in authoring practices.
Please propose some new wording. Laura sent you the 13 different wordings
for fonts the group has proposed. We met resistance on all as being too
broad.
You and I have been working on quantifying font family widths. That may be
a way of helping scope the font family language to be acceptable to the AG
at large.


If is have to give up color on the web that is a disaster for me.

Yes. It would be a disaster for many many people.  The LVTF is not giving
up on color. We are regrouping and trying to find a better approach to make
sure the things you mentioned above are called out so authors have better
success criteria fo follow regarding color.


I did not see those threads.

Lets figure out a way to provide you access to the information.



Wayne



On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu> wrote:

> Wayne,
> This is a process. I don't think anyone disagrees that the ability to
> change color is important. We are taking some time to get the wording
> right. Writing these is hard. There will be lots of discussion. Color will
> not go away.
>
>
> On Apr 27, 2017 8:06 PM, "Wayne Dick" <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The ability to change color is essential to my use of web pages.
>
> Agrr
>
>
> An icon that depends on background color to be visible is using color to
> convey meaning.
>
> Agree. We talked about that in todays meeting and agreed to do more on
> this topic. I created a wiki page with reference to the minutes.
>
>
> A presentation that depends on a background image to make font visible is
> using color to convey meaning.
>
> Agree. See above
>
>
> Background images were never created to act as cashes for icons. Using
> sprites in background images is like using a heading because you like the
> style of the element.
>
> Yes.
>
>
> We are being blocked from accessibility because of an identifiable list of
> practices that are kludges.
>
> I think you started a good list. We need to expand the list. Get examples.
> Build the case. Write the SC. It takes time. We have 15 months to go.
>
>
> Testability of color substitution is trivial.  Setting save  color choices
> with a wide domain of choice is trivial.  There is not reason to deny users
> access to the color of their choice.
>
> If color is taken off the table I will prepare an appeal to the AC. I have
> enough data to prove my case.
>
> We are NOT removing color forever. We are rethinking the approach and
> wording of the SC to approach the issue from the authors side rather than
> the user need side.
> I think the group made progress on the differt approach to the color SC
> today.
> Please give the group time to think and the process (which is slow and
> frustrating) to work, so we can craft a solid SC to address color.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ach, I shouldn’t reply from my phone, I had meant the test should be:
>>
>>
>>
>> “Change the colours to black and white. Where the foreground text is dark
>> use white on black, or if the foreground text is light use black on white.”
>>
>>
>>
>> This would be a test to find issues as a proxy of what the user does, it
>> is not the user requirement. I think that would highlight any issues people
>> encounter?
>>
>>
>>
>> I can’t think how to get that into SC text as a bullet though… perhaps:
>>
>>
>>
>> * Colours can be adapted to a high-contrast colour scheme such as black
>> and white.
>>
>>
>>
>> Although not everyone wants high-contrast the ability to change it is
>> there, easy to test, and clear on the requirement… I hope.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Alastair
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>